since this is a hot topic on the forum i thought i would post this. it seems that other attorney's are echoing(is there such a word-lol) loophole's position.
Peterson case is not sealed tight
By John Ritter, USA TODAY
MODESTO, Calif. ? It's no secret most people in this close-knit Central Valley farm town think Scott Peterson murdered his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner.
Legal experts caution that prosecutors may not have a 'slam dunk' against Peterson, as some have speculated.
AP
They point to the $250,000 life insurance policy he took out on her, to the young woman he had an affair with, to the coincidence the bodies of Laci and her baby turn up near where Peterson said he was fishing the day she disappeared, to the fact he wasted no time trading her car for a new pickup truck. (Related item: Criminal complaint: People vs. Peterson)
If that's not enough, Peterson, his hair dyed blond and sporting a goatee, was arrested within 30 miles of the Mexican border carrying $10,000.
Small wonder that many here, emotionally wrapped up in a case that has drawn national attention, consider Peterson's conviction a "slam dunk" ? the very words California Attorney General Bill Lockyer used last week.
But Lockyer says he was referring only to the positive match of DNA from the corpses that washed up in San Francisco Bay to Laci and Conner, not to the prosecution's case against her husband.
Moreover, legal experts caution that what seem long odds against the 30-year-old fertilizer salesman at this early stage may not be as it appears. A case cloaked for months in mystery over the fate of Laci, 27, and a month shy of her due date, resonates with more unknowns as Peterson sits in the county jail awaiting trial.
The Stanislaus County district attorney, James Brazelton, says police have gathered "a lot of evidence" against Peterson but declines to disclose it.
That has sparked speculation about the strength of the government's case. "I have reservations about it," says Mark Biros, a former federal prosecutor. "I don't think what is known necessarily would be enough to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' he did it. They say they have a strong case. Well, maybe they do, maybe they don't."
Brazelton says he'll oppose bail for Peterson at a hearing May 6 and will decide before May 19 whether to seek the death penalty. He says the case could take two years or longer to come to trial.
Peterson pleaded innocent this week to two murder counts and could be executed if convicted. A double homicide is a "special circumstance" that qualifies as a capital crime under California law.
Prosecutors say he killed his wife in their home here late Dec. 23 or early Dec. 24, then drove to the bay and dumped her body. He reported her missing after returning from what he said was a daylong fishing trip out of the Berkeley Marina, 90 miles from here.
Biros, now a Washington, D.C., defense lawyer, says it's not unusual for a couple to buy an insurance policy before the birth of a child. He says an argument could be made that Peterson wouldn't have dumped her body near the place where he told police he was fishing Christmas Eve.
Peterson, by now a recognizable figure, could convince a jury that he changed his appearance to avoid ridicule. But harder to explain, say lawyers not connected to the case, is the $10,000 he was carrying. He could say he'd been driven out of Modesto and had the cash because he wasn't sure where to go next. But lawyers say trading Laci's car so soon makes it look as if he knew she wasn't returning.
"Obviously, there's a lot we haven't seen," says Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles. "Because on the face of it, you raise your eyebrows and say, 'Gosh, do they have enough for a conviction, let alone the death penalty?' "
Levenson says prosecutors could, indeed, have a slam dunk. They may have a witness who saw him dispose of the body or receipts for chains or weights intended to hold a body on the ocean floor. His computer could have revealed visits to potentially incriminating Web sites. Police may have obtained a wire tap and caught him incriminating himself. His own statements to police may have inconsistencies. Investigators might have found blood in the house. They may have turned up something relevant in Peterson's past. Laci could have written a note he didn't know about revealing marital problems.
But nothing has come out publicly. "Generally in a high-profile case like this, there are leaks, usually some indications of what the evidence is," says Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of Southern California.
Police searched the Petersons' home and vehicles at least twice and took items for lab analysis.
Levenson questions why Brazelton raised expectations by touting the quantity of evidence. In the O.J. Simpson murder case, "they did that and it came back to bite them," she says. "(Prosecutor) Marcia Clark said, 'Of course we have enough evidence to convict him. We wouldn't bring a charge unless we did.' "
The coroner's office has not determined how Laci and Conner died, and it's possible the cause of death will never be known because of the bodies' deterioration.
Without a cause of death, prosecutors can't lay out a story for the jury of what happened. And the defense could argue scenarios not involving Peterson are possible. "But there are certainly ways to prove murder without knowing how the victim died," Chemerinsky says.
Gerald Uelmen, who was on the Simpson defense team, thinks the Peterson case will be "a battle of experts." His court-appointed lawyer, public defender Tim Bazar, will seek outside analysis to dispute the time and place the body was disposed of, Uelmen says. He expects Bazar to try to move the trial out of Modesto because of negative publicity about Peterson. Brazelton says he'll oppose that.
"There's always speculation that publicity will prevent a fair trial," Chemerinsky says. "But all the studies show that juries do a very good job of deciding based on the evidence in the courtroom."
Brazelton may feel political pressure to seek the death penalty, but less than 10% of California murder cases with "special circumstances" are actually tried as capital cases, Uelmen says.
He says California prosecutors rarely seek death penalties in murders involving spouses. They didn't in the Simpson case. "Very often these aren't clear-cut premeditation," he says. "And I don't think there's much clear evidence of premeditation in this case."
Barring leaks, the first public glimpse of prosecution evidence may not come until Peterson's preliminary hearing this summer. But interest in this tragedy of a young mother-to-be that mobilized hundreds of volunteers, a statewide search, a $500,000 reward and saturation news coverage is not likely to wane.
"It became a mission, a cause celebre," Levenson says. "People felt personally invested in finding Laci. It was a victim you knew by the first name."
Besides, Levenson says, "We don't have another highly publicized murder case grabbing the headlines, and we always seem to have one."
Peterson case is not sealed tight
By John Ritter, USA TODAY
MODESTO, Calif. ? It's no secret most people in this close-knit Central Valley farm town think Scott Peterson murdered his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner.
Legal experts caution that prosecutors may not have a 'slam dunk' against Peterson, as some have speculated.
AP
They point to the $250,000 life insurance policy he took out on her, to the young woman he had an affair with, to the coincidence the bodies of Laci and her baby turn up near where Peterson said he was fishing the day she disappeared, to the fact he wasted no time trading her car for a new pickup truck. (Related item: Criminal complaint: People vs. Peterson)
If that's not enough, Peterson, his hair dyed blond and sporting a goatee, was arrested within 30 miles of the Mexican border carrying $10,000.
Small wonder that many here, emotionally wrapped up in a case that has drawn national attention, consider Peterson's conviction a "slam dunk" ? the very words California Attorney General Bill Lockyer used last week.
But Lockyer says he was referring only to the positive match of DNA from the corpses that washed up in San Francisco Bay to Laci and Conner, not to the prosecution's case against her husband.
Moreover, legal experts caution that what seem long odds against the 30-year-old fertilizer salesman at this early stage may not be as it appears. A case cloaked for months in mystery over the fate of Laci, 27, and a month shy of her due date, resonates with more unknowns as Peterson sits in the county jail awaiting trial.
The Stanislaus County district attorney, James Brazelton, says police have gathered "a lot of evidence" against Peterson but declines to disclose it.
That has sparked speculation about the strength of the government's case. "I have reservations about it," says Mark Biros, a former federal prosecutor. "I don't think what is known necessarily would be enough to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' he did it. They say they have a strong case. Well, maybe they do, maybe they don't."
Brazelton says he'll oppose bail for Peterson at a hearing May 6 and will decide before May 19 whether to seek the death penalty. He says the case could take two years or longer to come to trial.
Peterson pleaded innocent this week to two murder counts and could be executed if convicted. A double homicide is a "special circumstance" that qualifies as a capital crime under California law.
Prosecutors say he killed his wife in their home here late Dec. 23 or early Dec. 24, then drove to the bay and dumped her body. He reported her missing after returning from what he said was a daylong fishing trip out of the Berkeley Marina, 90 miles from here.
Biros, now a Washington, D.C., defense lawyer, says it's not unusual for a couple to buy an insurance policy before the birth of a child. He says an argument could be made that Peterson wouldn't have dumped her body near the place where he told police he was fishing Christmas Eve.
Peterson, by now a recognizable figure, could convince a jury that he changed his appearance to avoid ridicule. But harder to explain, say lawyers not connected to the case, is the $10,000 he was carrying. He could say he'd been driven out of Modesto and had the cash because he wasn't sure where to go next. But lawyers say trading Laci's car so soon makes it look as if he knew she wasn't returning.
"Obviously, there's a lot we haven't seen," says Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles. "Because on the face of it, you raise your eyebrows and say, 'Gosh, do they have enough for a conviction, let alone the death penalty?' "
Levenson says prosecutors could, indeed, have a slam dunk. They may have a witness who saw him dispose of the body or receipts for chains or weights intended to hold a body on the ocean floor. His computer could have revealed visits to potentially incriminating Web sites. Police may have obtained a wire tap and caught him incriminating himself. His own statements to police may have inconsistencies. Investigators might have found blood in the house. They may have turned up something relevant in Peterson's past. Laci could have written a note he didn't know about revealing marital problems.
But nothing has come out publicly. "Generally in a high-profile case like this, there are leaks, usually some indications of what the evidence is," says Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of Southern California.
Police searched the Petersons' home and vehicles at least twice and took items for lab analysis.
Levenson questions why Brazelton raised expectations by touting the quantity of evidence. In the O.J. Simpson murder case, "they did that and it came back to bite them," she says. "(Prosecutor) Marcia Clark said, 'Of course we have enough evidence to convict him. We wouldn't bring a charge unless we did.' "
The coroner's office has not determined how Laci and Conner died, and it's possible the cause of death will never be known because of the bodies' deterioration.
Without a cause of death, prosecutors can't lay out a story for the jury of what happened. And the defense could argue scenarios not involving Peterson are possible. "But there are certainly ways to prove murder without knowing how the victim died," Chemerinsky says.
Gerald Uelmen, who was on the Simpson defense team, thinks the Peterson case will be "a battle of experts." His court-appointed lawyer, public defender Tim Bazar, will seek outside analysis to dispute the time and place the body was disposed of, Uelmen says. He expects Bazar to try to move the trial out of Modesto because of negative publicity about Peterson. Brazelton says he'll oppose that.
"There's always speculation that publicity will prevent a fair trial," Chemerinsky says. "But all the studies show that juries do a very good job of deciding based on the evidence in the courtroom."
Brazelton may feel political pressure to seek the death penalty, but less than 10% of California murder cases with "special circumstances" are actually tried as capital cases, Uelmen says.
He says California prosecutors rarely seek death penalties in murders involving spouses. They didn't in the Simpson case. "Very often these aren't clear-cut premeditation," he says. "And I don't think there's much clear evidence of premeditation in this case."
Barring leaks, the first public glimpse of prosecution evidence may not come until Peterson's preliminary hearing this summer. But interest in this tragedy of a young mother-to-be that mobilized hundreds of volunteers, a statewide search, a $500,000 reward and saturation news coverage is not likely to wane.
"It became a mission, a cause celebre," Levenson says. "People felt personally invested in finding Laci. It was a victim you knew by the first name."
Besides, Levenson says, "We don't have another highly publicized murder case grabbing the headlines, and we always seem to have one."
